SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Bom) 107

C.MOOKERJEE, C.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Pandey-Mishra & Company – Appellant
Versus
Anil Upendra Pitale & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - C. MOOKERJEE, C.J.:---Mr. Savant appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this appeal preferred against the order dt. 9th March, 1986 of Daud, J., allowing the appeal under section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preferred by the original defendants 8 and 9-respondents 8 and 9 against the order under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court. Bombay, upon the plaintiffs' ---Appellants Notice of motion. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in (Obedur Rehman v. Ahmedali Bharucha)1, 1982(1) Bom.C.R. 430 and the recent Division Bench judgment in the case of (Krishna Yashwant Shirodkar v. Subhash Krishna Patil)2, Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1987 disposed of on 10th Feb, 1988 reported in 1982(2) Bom.C.R. 252 sitting in appeal we are bound to take the same view that the present appeal is barred under section 104(2) of the Civil P.C. and therefore, the appeal is liable to fail without entering into the merits of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs appellant has submitted that in view








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top